↓ Skip to main content

Neglected Tropical Diseases and the Millennium Development Goals-why the "other diseases" matter: reality versus rhetoric

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neglected Tropical Diseases and the Millennium Development Goals-why the "other diseases" matter: reality versus rhetoric
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1756-3305-4-234
Pubmed ID
Authors

David H Molyneux, Mwele N Malecela

Abstract

Since 2004 there has been an increased recognition of the importance of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) as impediments to development. These diseases are caused by a variety of infectious agents - viruses, bacteria and parasites - which cause a diversity of clinical conditions throughout the tropics. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has defined seventeen of these conditions as core NTDs. The objectives for the control, elimination or eradication of these conditions have been defined in World Health Assembly resolutions whilst the strategies for the control or elimination of individual diseases have been defined in various WHO documents. Since 2005 there has been a drive for the expanded control of these diseases through an integrated approach of mass drug administration referred to as Preventive Chemotherapy via community-based distribution systems and through schools. This has been made possible by donations from major pharmaceutical companies of quality and efficacious drugs which have a proven track record of safety. As a result of the increased commitment of endemic countries, bilateral donors and non-governmental development organisations, there has been a considerable expansion of mass drug administration. In particular, programmes targeting lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, trachoma and soil transmitted helminth infections have expanded to treat 887. 8 million people in 2009. There has been significant progress towards guinea worm eradication, and the control of leprosy and human African trypanosomiasis. This paper responds to what the authors believe are inappropriate criticisms of these programmes and counters accusations of the motives of partners made in recently published papers. We provide a detailed response and update the information on the numbers of global treatments undertaken for NTDs and list the success stories to date.The paper acknowledges that in undertaking any health programme in environments such as post-conflict countries, there are always challenges. It is also recognised that NTD control must always be undertaken within the health system context. However, it is important to emphasise that the availability of donated drugs, the multiple impact of those drugs, the willingness of countries to undertake their distribution, thereby committing their own resources to the programmes, and the proven beneficial results outweigh the problems which are faced in environments where communities are often beyond the reach of health services. Given the availability of these interventions, their cost effectiveness and the broader development impact we believe it would be unethical not to continue programmes of such long term benefit to the "bottom billion".

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 225 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 19%
Student > Master 39 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 42 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 21%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 44 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,909,831
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#1,605
of 5,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,456
of 242,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.